The prevention of health problems is more important than treatment. Government funding should reflect that.
Do you agree or disagree?
Some argue that instead of paying for treatment of ill people, the government should try to stop these ailments from occurring on the first place. I disagree with such claims because redirecting fund away from medical care and ill patients can present high risk for the society in short term.
To begin with, there is no doubt that preventive measures in public health include such important steps as vaccination and promotion of healthy lifestyle. Both can help all community members to stay healthy for longer, and therefore could reduce pressure on the hospitals. These measures demand for significant financing from the government budget. However, the benefits of preventive measures are only seen in the long term perspective and do not eliminate the illnesses of people who already require medical care today.
On the other hand, high quality medical care available for all population is one of the most important factors in increasing life expectancy in the country. Many people in present time are already ill and require immediate treatments. If the government lowers its funding for medical care, the hospitals will be plunged in chaos while doctors will struggle to treat people who require urgent help. In such situation, untreated illnesses can lead to deaths, which is unacceptable. Hence, the government must make sure it provides necessary medical treatments to people in need.
In conclusion, I recognize the significance of preventing illnesses as a long term policy of a state. However, it is dangerous to promote it at an expense of existing funding dedicated to treating already existing conditions. If done incorrectly, the measure can lead to serious consequences, including death of hospital patients. All things considered, I disagree that such redistribution policy should be implemented.
Comments
Many people argue that
Many people argue that government and local authorities should rather take measures to prevent diseases, than to use budgets for curing those. I agree with the former for two reasons. Firstly, it is always easier to detect, than to prevent an issue and secondly, I think a special consideration should be taken when discussing humans' health. This essay will further discuss both arguments.
Various studies have shown that to overcome any problem, it is much more efficient and effective to take the approach of identification and prevention, instead of later detection. With regards to healthcare, this would mean that it will be less costy and more time-saving for government to organize periodic vaccinations and diagnostical procedures, than to provide with free or partially free treatment to a population in an overall poor health condition. For instance, we can compare strategies of the United States and any Scandinavian country and we will see that less money is spent in the latter, however people living there are healthier. Of course, there are more than one reason why people get sick more often in one country, than in the other, but I consider the above-mentioned fact to be the main one.
Besides that, we must not forget that it is people's health and lives that can be endangered, would a wrong healthcare tactic be adopted. Governments are not only responsible for proper fund management, but also it is their responsibility to do their best to have a health and happy population. In my opinion, even if the effect of prevention and defeating a disease is the same in terms of money, no person would choose to get sick and then to recover.
To sum up, I believe it is more beneficial to keep a nation healthy, than to later try to come up with solutions. I am also assured that those charged with governance have enough power and means to help population avoid illnesses and diseases.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, if, so, therefore, while, in conclusion, in short, no doubt, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 7.85571142285 140% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 7.30460921844 82% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 24.0651302605 50% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 41.998997996 90% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 8.3376753507 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1538.0 1615.20841683 95% => OK
No of words: 286.0 315.596192385 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.37762237762 5.12529762239 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.11236361783 4.20363070211 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88217103471 2.80592935109 103% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 176.041082164 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.597902097902 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 479.7 506.74238477 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 5.43587174349 92% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 0.809619238477 124% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 20.2975951904 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.5068197973 49.4020404114 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.533333333 106.682146367 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0666666667 20.7667163134 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.06666666667 7.06120827912 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.01903807615 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 3.9879759519 201% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 3.4128256513 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.144588337777 0.244688304435 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0466265626063 0.084324248473 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.035105283671 0.0667982634062 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0895913435563 0.151304729494 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0140641681604 0.056905535591 25% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 13.0946893788 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 50.2224549098 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.3001002004 105% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.4159519038 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.58950901804 102% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 78.4519038076 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 9.78957915832 112% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.1190380762 95% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 67.4157303371 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 6.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.